|
On January 23 2012 07:30 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:28 Elegy wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 06:58 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 06:57 Hider wrote:On January 22 2012 21:05 Figgy wrote:On August 16 2011 22:56 Candadar wrote:On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote:I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell. Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence? I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all. I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person. To keep it relevant too so I don't get banned, here are some politically relevant bullshit quotes from her: "Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." —Michele Bachmann, 1/26/05, Jobs, Energy and Community Development Committee, testifying against SF 3, a bill to raise the MN minimum wage and advocating the elimination of the minimum wage altogether.. This is one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen said. Removing the minimum wage would put so many people in poverty it's ridiculous, there is a reason Canada doesn't have insane unemployment and that is BECAUSE of the higher minimum wage. It's way too low for most of the USA already. Get ready for US children sweatshops if she ever gets her way! Uhhh no. Dont know how you got that idea. Who taught you that? Your parents? A teacher? With no minimum wage wages are based on suply and demand and you will get what your worth from your employee. Sure if your stupid as shit or has physical problems your wage will be low, and you will probably need socail services. But thats not relevant to minimum wage. This is just a big myth. Except corporations with monopolies will basically be able to pay their employees next to nothing, as they will control the only available jobs. Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. Right, because the history of labor-capital relations in the United States doesn't disprove you completely. Oh wait, it does. No it doesn't. OF course wages were lower back then. But arguing through empirics is stupid, as results can be manipulated too easily.
On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal.
I'm so glad you're conciliatory to that point. Keeps me from having to talk to you for 10 pages about how any argument that lacks empirical evidence is an exercise in philosophy and futility.
|
On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 06:58 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 06:57 Hider wrote:On January 22 2012 21:05 Figgy wrote:
[quote]
This is one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen said. Removing the minimum wage would put so many people in poverty it's ridiculous, there is a reason Canada doesn't have insane unemployment and that is BECAUSE of the higher minimum wage. It's way too low for most of the USA already. Get ready for US children sweatshops if she ever gets her way!
Uhhh no. Dont know how you got that idea. Who taught you that? Your parents? A teacher? With no minimum wage wages are based on suply and demand and you will get what your worth from your employee. Sure if your stupid as shit or has physical problems your wage will be low, and you will probably need socail services. But thats not relevant to minimum wage. This is just a big myth. Except corporations with monopolies will basically be able to pay their employees next to nothing, as they will control the only available jobs. Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies.
Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place.
And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing.
|
On January 23 2012 07:59 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:30 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:28 Elegy wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 06:58 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 06:57 Hider wrote:On January 22 2012 21:05 Figgy wrote:On August 16 2011 22:56 Candadar wrote:On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote:I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell. Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence? I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all. I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person. To keep it relevant too so I don't get banned, here are some politically relevant bullshit quotes from her: "Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." —Michele Bachmann, 1/26/05, Jobs, Energy and Community Development Committee, testifying against SF 3, a bill to raise the MN minimum wage and advocating the elimination of the minimum wage altogether.. This is one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen said. Removing the minimum wage would put so many people in poverty it's ridiculous, there is a reason Canada doesn't have insane unemployment and that is BECAUSE of the higher minimum wage. It's way too low for most of the USA already. Get ready for US children sweatshops if she ever gets her way! Uhhh no. Dont know how you got that idea. Who taught you that? Your parents? A teacher? With no minimum wage wages are based on suply and demand and you will get what your worth from your employee. Sure if your stupid as shit or has physical problems your wage will be low, and you will probably need socail services. But thats not relevant to minimum wage. This is just a big myth. Except corporations with monopolies will basically be able to pay their employees next to nothing, as they will control the only available jobs. Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. Right, because the history of labor-capital relations in the United States doesn't disprove you completely. Oh wait, it does. No it doesn't. OF course wages were lower back then. But arguing through empirics is stupid, as results can be manipulated too easily. Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. I'm so glad you're conciliatory to that point. Keeps me from having to talk to you for 10 pages about how any argument that lacks empirical evidence is an exercise in philosophy and futility.
Even in philosophy, we're (most of us, at least) pretty down with empirical evidence nowadays.
|
Ask a contract instructor at a university what they make per hour.
Depends on where you live I guess. : /
|
On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 06:58 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 06:57 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Uhhh no. Dont know how you got that idea. Who taught you that? Your parents? A teacher?
With no minimum wage wages are based on suply and demand and you will get what your worth from your employee. Sure if your stupid as shit or has physical problems your wage will be low, and you will probably need socail services. But thats not relevant to minimum wage. This is just a big myth. Except corporations with monopolies will basically be able to pay their employees next to nothing, as they will control the only available jobs. Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing.
No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan.
The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job.
L
|
On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 06:58 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
Except corporations with monopolies will basically be able to pay their employees next to nothing, as they will control the only available jobs. Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L
Says the Danish guy who lives in a socialist country. Easy administration work is not easy to get in the US. Nor is school cheap.
|
On January 23 2012 08:00 ikl2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:59 aksfjh wrote:On January 23 2012 07:30 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:28 Elegy wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 06:58 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 06:57 Hider wrote:On January 22 2012 21:05 Figgy wrote:On August 16 2011 22:56 Candadar wrote:On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote:
I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell.
[quote]
I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all.
I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person. To keep it relevant too so I don't get banned, here are some politically relevant bullshit quotes from her: "Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." —Michele Bachmann, 1/26/05, Jobs, Energy and Community Development Committee, testifying against SF 3, a bill to raise the MN minimum wage and advocating the elimination of the minimum wage altogether.. This is one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen said. Removing the minimum wage would put so many people in poverty it's ridiculous, there is a reason Canada doesn't have insane unemployment and that is BECAUSE of the higher minimum wage. It's way too low for most of the USA already. Get ready for US children sweatshops if she ever gets her way! Uhhh no. Dont know how you got that idea. Who taught you that? Your parents? A teacher? With no minimum wage wages are based on suply and demand and you will get what your worth from your employee. Sure if your stupid as shit or has physical problems your wage will be low, and you will probably need socail services. But thats not relevant to minimum wage. This is just a big myth. Except corporations with monopolies will basically be able to pay their employees next to nothing, as they will control the only available jobs. Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. Right, because the history of labor-capital relations in the United States doesn't disprove you completely. Oh wait, it does. No it doesn't. OF course wages were lower back then. But arguing through empirics is stupid, as results can be manipulated too easily. On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. I'm so glad you're conciliatory to that point. Keeps me from having to talk to you for 10 pages about how any argument that lacks empirical evidence is an exercise in philosophy and futility. Even in philosophy, we're (most of us, at least) pretty down with empirical evidence nowadays.
the empiricism was born from, and is a philosophy 
|
On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 06:58 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
Except corporations with monopolies will basically be able to pay their employees next to nothing, as they will control the only available jobs. Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L
Except theres also such as "You need X amount of money to survive", which is pretty much around the level of minimum wage for 40 hours a week, etc.
Obviously that is not a specific or guranteed number, but it is accurate.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you're also overrating just how many oppurtunities there are for some people. Some people do not have cars, some people have to take care of kids. They have specific limitations on what to exactly they can do, or what jobs they can take.
For example, my summer job is assisting kids that take summer school basically (it actually pays 3 bucks over minimum wage and I'm only 17, holyyyyyyyyyyy shit), and plenty of them have told me "My mom has to take me and my brother to different programs at X, Y during the day, well maintaining Z, and thus only has period P to work. And during period P there are very very few oppurtunties in regards to jobs, and all of the them are minimum wage level, so she has to take them, and just barely gets by."
I'm not sure exactly how much you know about US standard of living, but we have a FUCK ton of people who barely scrape by as it is, and removing minimum wage would destroy and hope they have.
|
This question may have already been answered, but is there any legitimate reason why all of the GOP primaries and caucuses are not held in every state simultaneously? That method seems to work efficiently for the presidential election, so why wouldn't it work for the nomination process? Drawing it out for months, especially with such long breaks between only a handful of states, seems to give a relatively small number of voters a large amount of influence. I'm from the state of Arkansas which will hold its primary on May 22nd, and I'm afraid a clear winner may already be determined by then, rendering my vote worthless.
I really don't want to move to a godforsaken state like Iowa. + Show Spoiler +as if Arkansas is any better
|
On January 23 2012 08:10 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L Says the Danish guy who lives in a socialist country. Easy administration work is not easy to get in the US. Nor is school cheap.
Its not easy to get easy administration work in Denmark either because of minimum wage. Actually its hard to get a "brain-dead" job if your + 18 in Denmark, since minimum wage forced by artifically powerful unions is around 20$/hour. Obv. if wages were maretbased 16-17 year olds would probably earn a bit more (instead of around 12$/hour), as suply would increase.
Well you should only take an education (from a pure financial perspective) if your estimated net present value of the education is cost efficient given what you expect to receive in future income, discounted with a riskadjust rate + borrow rate.
In a free market where no governemnt interfered with education system, people would only take these kind of educations that were worth it, and if educations were not worth it (to expensive) they wouldn't exist.
So if some guy dislikes his current situation (as he receives low wages) he will able to finance his own education and pay it back with the future expected income.
The above is how wealth is created. When people make these kind of decisions. Wealth isn't created when you take a super expensive that isn't gonna give you super weill paid jobs. Then your better of taking the brain dead jobs (ignoring personal interest). But then the market will realize that, and just. This is what the market does and governemnt cant. The market can adjust wages to optimize given suply and demand to create optimal wealth.
Sure the market will not adjust immediately and may make mistakes in the short term. But over time it makes much bettter decisions Sovjet.
So ask your self this. Why are US eductation so expensive in general? Sure the elite education are supposed to be expensive. But what about non elite educations. Do government interfere in anyway with that? Im sure you can do some research your self for now.
|
On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 06:58 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
Except corporations with monopolies will basically be able to pay their employees next to nothing, as they will control the only available jobs. Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L
That's just semantics. Being employed without being paid sufficiently is not an acceptable alternative, let alone the inevitable consequence of many current $20 jobs becoming $10 or $5 jobs with minimum wage removed.
The point of being employed is earning enough money to make a living worthy of a human being. Without that, employment means nothing. At least having high unemployment actually puts some stress on the government to deal with the problem and fix it.
|
On January 23 2012 08:18 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L Except theres also such as "You need X amount of money to survive", which is pretty much around the level of minimum wage for 40 hours a week, etc. Obviously that is not a specific or guranteed number, but it is accurate. I understand what you're saying, but I think you're also overrating just how many oppurtunities there are for some people. Some people do not have cars, some people have to take care of kids. They have specific limitations on what to exactly they can do, or what jobs they can take. For example, my summer job is assisting kids that take summer school basically (it actually pays 3 bucks over minimum wage and I'm only 17, holyyyyyyyyyyy shit), and plenty of them have told me "My mom has to take me and my brother to different programs at X, Y during the day, well maintaining Z, and thus only has period P to work. And during period P there are very very few oppurtunties in regards to jobs, and all of the them are minimum wage level, so she has to take them, and just barely gets by." I'm not sure exactly how much you know about US standard of living, but we have a FUCK ton of people who barely scrape by as it is, and removing minimum wage would destroy and hope they have.
Removing minimum wage wouldn't destroy them. They would be paid what they are worth. As US minmum wage is relatively low (compared to danish) the current minimum wage most likely doesn't change anything for 99.9% of all people, as the minimum wage is probably close to the value the "brain-dead" workers are worth. Removal of minimum wage however would make it possible for the upper "unqualified" people to get a job (which they couldn't before).
I think the current minimum wage in US is mostly a pshycological thing. It doesn't really change anything if its removed or not. But I guess that you can see the problem with us danes. When your 18 year old, you get fired from your job, as your employee dont want to pay you 20$.
|
|
|
On January 23 2012 08:26 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:18 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past.
Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L Except theres also such as "You need X amount of money to survive", which is pretty much around the level of minimum wage for 40 hours a week, etc. Obviously that is not a specific or guranteed number, but it is accurate. I understand what you're saying, but I think you're also overrating just how many oppurtunities there are for some people. Some people do not have cars, some people have to take care of kids. They have specific limitations on what to exactly they can do, or what jobs they can take. For example, my summer job is assisting kids that take summer school basically (it actually pays 3 bucks over minimum wage and I'm only 17, holyyyyyyyyyyy shit), and plenty of them have told me "My mom has to take me and my brother to different programs at X, Y during the day, well maintaining Z, and thus only has period P to work. And during period P there are very very few oppurtunties in regards to jobs, and all of the them are minimum wage level, so she has to take them, and just barely gets by." I'm not sure exactly how much you know about US standard of living, but we have a FUCK ton of people who barely scrape by as it is, and removing minimum wage would destroy and hope they have. Removing minimum wage wouldn't destroy them. They would be paid what they are worth. As US minmum wage is relatively low (compared to danish) the current minimum wage most likely doesn't change anything for 99.9% of all people, as the minimum wage is probably close to the value the "brain-dead" workers are worth. Removal of minimum wage however would make it possible for the upper "unqualified" people to get a job (which they couldn't before). I think the current minimum wage in US is mostly a pshycological thing. It doesn't really change anything if its removed or not. But I guess that you can see the problem with us danes. When your 18 year old, you get fired from your job, as your employee dont want to pay you 20$.
Except the concept of "brain dead" work, or how much it is worth is completely alterable by larger corporations if they have enough power, which is why the government put minimum wage in place, and continually increases it as we go forward.
|
On January 23 2012 08:22 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L That's just semantics. Being employed without being paid sufficiently is not an acceptable alternative, let alone the inevitable consequence of many current $20 jobs becoming $10 or $5 jobs with minimum wage removed. The point of being employed is earning enough money to make a living worthy of a human being. Without that, employment means nothing. At least having high unemployment actually puts some stress on the government to deal with the problem and fix it.
Ok lets imagine a scenario:
You own a company. You sell food to customers.
You produce the food your self. It cost you 2$ to produce 1 food. You can sell 1 food for 5$. Since you want at least 1$ for your self for each food sold you and you cant sell the food your self (your busy running the company) you need to hire someone to sell the food for you. You are willing to pay him 2$ for each food sold. Based on his qualifications you estimate that he is able to sell 5 food an hour, and hence you are willing to pay him on an hourly basis of 10$.
He thinks he isn't paid sufficiently. So he tries to get another job.
But he doesn't have any other kind of skill. And every other company in the world is in similar situation to yours, and they dont value him any higher than what you do.
Then why should he receive a higher wage? 2$ is (given your estimations are correct) what he is worth. THis is the correct wage. If minimum wage =4$, this guy will be unemployed for the rest of his life.
Is he needs to buy food and have a place to live, then he gotta work his butt of. THen maybe 8 hours/day isn't enough. He gotta work 14-15 hours a day. Or perhaps he should take an educaiton with a positive expected value.
But he should not be paid more than what he is worth.
|
On January 23 2012 08:29 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:26 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 08:18 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:
[quote]
They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L Except theres also such as "You need X amount of money to survive", which is pretty much around the level of minimum wage for 40 hours a week, etc. Obviously that is not a specific or guranteed number, but it is accurate. I understand what you're saying, but I think you're also overrating just how many oppurtunities there are for some people. Some people do not have cars, some people have to take care of kids. They have specific limitations on what to exactly they can do, or what jobs they can take. For example, my summer job is assisting kids that take summer school basically (it actually pays 3 bucks over minimum wage and I'm only 17, holyyyyyyyyyyy shit), and plenty of them have told me "My mom has to take me and my brother to different programs at X, Y during the day, well maintaining Z, and thus only has period P to work. And during period P there are very very few oppurtunties in regards to jobs, and all of the them are minimum wage level, so she has to take them, and just barely gets by." I'm not sure exactly how much you know about US standard of living, but we have a FUCK ton of people who barely scrape by as it is, and removing minimum wage would destroy and hope they have. Removing minimum wage wouldn't destroy them. They would be paid what they are worth. As US minmum wage is relatively low (compared to danish) the current minimum wage most likely doesn't change anything for 99.9% of all people, as the minimum wage is probably close to the value the "brain-dead" workers are worth. Removal of minimum wage however would make it possible for the upper "unqualified" people to get a job (which they couldn't before). I think the current minimum wage in US is mostly a pshycological thing. It doesn't really change anything if its removed or not. But I guess that you can see the problem with us danes. When your 18 year old, you get fired from your job, as your employee dont want to pay you 20$. Except the concept of "brain dead" work, or how much it is worth is completely alterable by larger corporations if they have enough power, which is why the government put minimum wage in place, and continually increases it as we go forward.
I dont think you have been reading what I wrote. Governement minimum wages doesn't change anything for the better: It gives those people who are valuable the same wage, and lets people who are not valuable be unemployed. But I guess i cant convince you over night. Just reflect about it, and eventually you might change your mind if your open minded.
|
On January 23 2012 08:18 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:18 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Now you are making some absurd assumptions. Like new competing companies aren't able to enter the market. Only government is able to make that strong of a monoply. I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L Except theres also such as "You need X amount of money to survive", which is pretty much around the level of minimum wage for 40 hours a week, etc. Obviously that is not a specific or guranteed number, but it is accurate. I understand what you're saying, but I think you're also overrating just how many oppurtunities there are for some people. Some people do not have cars, some people have to take care of kids. They have specific limitations on what to exactly they can do, or what jobs they can take. For example, my summer job is assisting kids that take summer school basically (it actually pays 3 bucks over minimum wage and I'm only 17, holyyyyyyyyyyy shit), and plenty of them have told me "My mom has to take me and my brother to different programs at X, Y during the day, well maintaining Z, and thus only has period P to work. And during period P there are very very few oppurtunties in regards to jobs, and all of the them are minimum wage level, so she has to take them, and just barely gets by." I'm not sure exactly how much you know about US standard of living, but we have a FUCK ton of people who barely scrape by as it is, and removing minimum wage would destroy and hope they have.
To be fair, there are also portions of the U.S. where the minimum wage and social welfare programs are mismatched and end up overpaying. While the cost of living in a big city may be overwhelming for somebody on minimum wage and social benefits, that same package is more than enough for many (very) small towns. These are towns where a 4 member family dwelling can cost as little as $25,000 for a purchase, and where utilities are pretty much paid for by local use of renewable sources (wind and solar). Working minimum wage in this area and getting food stamps and other social benefits in this area is more than enough to live comfortably.
|
On January 23 2012 08:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:18 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:31 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:23 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past.
Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them. How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L Except theres also such as "You need X amount of money to survive", which is pretty much around the level of minimum wage for 40 hours a week, etc. Obviously that is not a specific or guranteed number, but it is accurate. I understand what you're saying, but I think you're also overrating just how many oppurtunities there are for some people. Some people do not have cars, some people have to take care of kids. They have specific limitations on what to exactly they can do, or what jobs they can take. For example, my summer job is assisting kids that take summer school basically (it actually pays 3 bucks over minimum wage and I'm only 17, holyyyyyyyyyyy shit), and plenty of them have told me "My mom has to take me and my brother to different programs at X, Y during the day, well maintaining Z, and thus only has period P to work. And during period P there are very very few oppurtunties in regards to jobs, and all of the them are minimum wage level, so she has to take them, and just barely gets by." I'm not sure exactly how much you know about US standard of living, but we have a FUCK ton of people who barely scrape by as it is, and removing minimum wage would destroy and hope they have. To be fair, there are also portions of the U.S. where the minimum wage and social welfare programs are mismatched and end up overpaying. While the cost of living in a big city may be overwhelming for somebody on minimum wage and social benefits, that same package is more than enough for many (very) small towns. These are towns where a 4 member family dwelling can cost as little as $25,000 for a purchase, and where utilities are pretty much paid for by local use of renewable sources (wind and solar). Working minimum wage in this area and getting food stamps and other social benefits in this area is more than enough to live comfortably.
Fair enough. Which I guess gives the "states should have precedence" arguement a pretty good case. And I could probably agree to that. But I don't think just slashing programs right down (at least minimum wage) is a very good idea and then leaving it in the hands of corporations.
Because lets face it, most corporations only give a shit to the point that they get their business. Government at least (or SHOULD) gives a shit in that people can have a livable life.
|
On January 23 2012 08:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 08:29 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 08:26 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 08:18 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 08:08 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 08:00 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:57 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:54 1Eris1 wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:34 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
How?
Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum. If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified. Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry). Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit. Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees. However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high. Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk. I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores. And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class. A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.) We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important. Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies. Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing. No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job. L Except theres also such as "You need X amount of money to survive", which is pretty much around the level of minimum wage for 40 hours a week, etc. Obviously that is not a specific or guranteed number, but it is accurate. I understand what you're saying, but I think you're also overrating just how many oppurtunities there are for some people. Some people do not have cars, some people have to take care of kids. They have specific limitations on what to exactly they can do, or what jobs they can take. For example, my summer job is assisting kids that take summer school basically (it actually pays 3 bucks over minimum wage and I'm only 17, holyyyyyyyyyyy shit), and plenty of them have told me "My mom has to take me and my brother to different programs at X, Y during the day, well maintaining Z, and thus only has period P to work. And during period P there are very very few oppurtunties in regards to jobs, and all of the them are minimum wage level, so she has to take them, and just barely gets by." I'm not sure exactly how much you know about US standard of living, but we have a FUCK ton of people who barely scrape by as it is, and removing minimum wage would destroy and hope they have. Removing minimum wage wouldn't destroy them. They would be paid what they are worth. As US minmum wage is relatively low (compared to danish) the current minimum wage most likely doesn't change anything for 99.9% of all people, as the minimum wage is probably close to the value the "brain-dead" workers are worth. Removal of minimum wage however would make it possible for the upper "unqualified" people to get a job (which they couldn't before). I think the current minimum wage in US is mostly a pshycological thing. It doesn't really change anything if its removed or not. But I guess that you can see the problem with us danes. When your 18 year old, you get fired from your job, as your employee dont want to pay you 20$. Except the concept of "brain dead" work, or how much it is worth is completely alterable by larger corporations if they have enough power, which is why the government put minimum wage in place, and continually increases it as we go forward. I dont think you have been reading what I wrote. Governement minimum wages doesn't change anything for the better: It gives those people who are valuable the same wage, and lets people who are not valuable be unemployed. But I guess i cant convince you over night. Just reflect about it, and eventually you might change your mind if your open minded.
And I don't think you're reading what I'm posting.
Lets say X job is woth 10 bucks an hour and Y job is worth 5 bucks an hour (this being the general opinion, not just the deeming of a specific individual like ourselves), and the minimum wage is 5 bucks an hour.
Obviously anyone working the X job doesn't really care about minimum wage, but someone working the Y job has to because...
If we remove minimum wage, than a corporation can suddenly say the Y job is only worth 2 dollars an hour. (Obviously we don't know exactly what a job is worth, but lets assume here that most people would agree it's worth 5)
Your arguement is that if they did this someone else would just come along and say "Hey F that business, I'll still pay 5 bucks for job Y" and then all the people getting paid 2 bucks would run over to that new business.
My arguement is that, if the business who is installing Y=2 dollars is powerful enough, they can basically block any of their competition whatsoever. (They can do this by refusing the manufacturers if they sell to the other business, or slashing their prices so far that business number two can't keep up)
So business number two, that is offering the job at 5 dollars an hour becomes unable to support itself, and thus has to drop down to Y=2 if they want to keep themselves afloat. (And realistically, they'd actually have to drop even lower)
And thus, with Y=2, people are much worse off, and it's very possible they won't even be able to support themselves to the point of living, and then they have to sell their homes/cars/etc.
|
There is a point where it does not make sense from an opportunity cost perspective to work. Here in BC that point is already above the minimum wage. Because of this, people don't work for minimum wage, there is no point, you are better served just doing nothing and getting E.I. or welfare because you earn so little money.
2 years ago, fruit growers in the Okanagan got a lot of negative publicity for hiring Mexican and Jamaican labourers to work their orchards. With an unemployment rate of 15% in the valley, people were asking why growers didn't hire locals. The answer is: locals didn't want the jobs. These were jobs paying $12.50 an hour for the most part, some as much as $17, and the work was too hard for the price.
This is the case for most of the unemployment here in Canada, and I would assume the USA. There are a lot of trained, educated, and skilled people who value their time at being worth more than minimum wage, so these menial, physical labour jobs remain unfilled. In the USA the case is a bit different, because of the option of hiring illegal immigrants, which support the entire the agriculture industries of Washington and California.
Imposing a minimum wage at a level where people actually value the job doesn't necessarily result in less people in the work force. There is empirical evidence on both sides of the issue, where factors such as education, unemployment benefits, and the work involved all play an important role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
